Prospective study of continuous infusion with Beriate® P in patients with severe haemophilia A undergoing surgery – a subgroup analysis

Continuous infusion of coagulation factor concentrates during intensive treatment

In clinical management of bleeds and surgical procedures in patients suffering from bleeding disorders either repetitive bolus injections (BI) or continuous infusion (CI) can be used for coagulation factor replacement. Continuous infusion seems to be an attractive route of administration and may be considered if replacement therapy is required for more than 3 days. The strongest argument favouring continuous infusion is its superiority in providing the patient with a safe and constant level of the deficient coagulation factor by balancing input with clearance. Furthermore, several studies have shown that coagulation factor consumption may be reduced by CI compared to repetitive bolus injections (BI) since unnecessary peaks of factor level are avoided. Concerns have been raised whether continuous infusion of coagulation concentrates is associated with an increased risk of developing inhibitors. However, available data have so far not shown an increased risk for inhibitor development in severe haemophilia patients with more than 50 exposure days of coagulation factor concentrates. Further, previously reported complications when using CI such as phlebitis at the infusion site and pump failure are nowadays very seldom seen when small amounts of heparin are added to the infusion bag, and increased quality of the pumps are available. Over the last decades, numerous reports have confirmed CI to be a safe and effective mode of coagulation factor replacement even in the most challenging surgical procedures, such as total joint arthroplasties.

Outcomes in Patients With Hemophilia and von Willebrand Disease Undergoing Invasive or Surgical Procedures

Adults with hemophilia A (HA), hemophilia B (HB), and von Willebrand disease (VWD) frequently require surgery and invasive procedures. However, there is variability in perioperative management guidelines. We describe our periprocedural outcomes in this setting. A retrospective chart review from January 2006 to December 2012 of patients with HA, HB, and VWD undergoing surgery or invasive procedures was conducted. Type of procedures, management including the use of continuous factor infusion, and administration of antifibrinolytics were reviewed. Adverse outcomes were defined as acute bleeding (<48 hours), delayed bleeding (≥48 hours), transfusion, inhibitor development, and thrombosis. We identified 59 patients with HA and HB. In all, 24 patients had severe hemophilia and 12 had mild/moderate hemophilia. Twelve patients had inhibitors. There were also 5 female carriers of HA and 6 patients with VWD. There were 34 major surgeries (26 orthopedic, 8 nonorthopedic) and 129 minor surgeries. Continuous infusion was used in 55.9% of major surgeries versus 8.5% of minor surgeries. Antifibrinolytics were administered in 14.7% of major surgeries versus 23.2% of minor surgeries. In all, 4 patients developed acute bleeding and 10 patients developed delayed bleeding. Delayed bleeding occurred in 28.6% of genitourinary procedures and in 16.1% of dental procedures. Five patients acquired an inhibitor and 2 had thrombosis. In conclusion, patients with HA, HB, or VWD had similar rates of adverse outcomes when undergoing minor surgeries or major surgeries. This finding underscores the importance of an interdisciplinary management and procedure-specific guidelines for patients with hemophilia and VWD prior to even minor invasive procedures.